William DeVinney

Counsel

Washington, D.C.
T 202.861.1554  |  F 202.861.1783

William DeVinney has a broad litigation practice that includes antitrust, intellectual property, commercial class action, securities, and other complex commercial litigation. He has extensive trial experience, both as a member of trail teams and as first chair in jury and bench trials, arbitrations proceedings, and regulatory hearings. William has also argued cases before several federal and state appellate courts. He also counsels clients on antitrust issues.

Select Experience

  • Member of team representing certified class of dairy farmers located in 14 Southeastern States against Dairy Farmers of America, Dean Foods, and a number of other defendants in an action alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to eliminate competition for marketing, sale, and purchase of raw milk in the Southeast United States. Litigation was settled for more than 70 percent of alleged damages.
  • Represented multinational consumer goods company in consumer class action alleging false advertising. Complaint against client dismissed with prejudice.
  • Represented multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation against Sherman Act Section 2 claim brought by competitor alleging that client had either monopolized or attempted to monopolize alleged market for transgenic corn seed.
More »

Experience

  • Member of team representing certified class of dairy farmers located in 14 Southeastern States against Dairy Farmers of America, Dean Foods, and a number of other defendants in an action alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to eliminate competition for marketing, sale, and purchase of raw milk in the Southeast United States. Litigation was settled for more than 70 percent of alleged damages.
  • Represented multinational consumer goods company in consumer class action alleging false advertising. Complaint against client dismissed with prejudice.
  • Represented multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation against Sherman Act Section 2 claim brought by competitor alleging that client had either monopolized or attempted to monopolize alleged market for transgenic corn seed.
  • Defended multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology company accused of monopolizing market for transgenic corn seed industry. Motion for class certification by plaintiff rejected by trial court and before Third Circuit on appeal.
  • Represented multinational technology company in private antitrust claim brought by competitor, as well as in investigations brought by the EU, Federal Trade Commission, and state government enforcement agencies.
  • Defended former executive of Bankers Trust Corporation in criminal trial and related SEC administrative proceedings arising from alleged improper accounting treatment of unclaimed funds. After six-week jury trial, client was acquitted of all 36 counts in indictment and favorable settlement was reached with SEC.

Pro Bono

  • Served as lead counsel for three congressmen and a public interest group filing amicus brief in United States Supreme Court.
  • Represented several clients in fair housing cases in antidiscrimination, fair housing, landlord/tenant, and contractual disputes.

Services

Admissions

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • District of Columbia
  • New York

Education

  • J.D., William & Mary Law School, 1998
  • B.S., Cornell University, 1991

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
Mushroom Court Ruling Sprouts Controversy on Whether Reliance on Lawyer Advice Maintains Affirmative Defense to Antitrust Claims
October 27, 2014
A federal district court recently ruled that claims of “good faith reliance on counsel” were not sufficient to maintain a Capper-Volstead affirmative defense to the antitrust laws – a result that may soon collide with rulings by other...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
A History of American Monopolists: Remembering One’s Non-Monopoly Roots
October 15, 2014
As the story goes, Ford Motor Co. almost never got off the ground because of a monopolist.  In 1903, the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers (ALAM) tried to stop Henry Ford from building his first gasoline-powered four-stroke...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
BakerHostetler Antitrust Lawyer Examines Recent Developments in Antitrust Class Action Litigation
October 14, 2014
The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2015 features a chapter by BakerHostetler antitrust partner Edmund W. Searby entitled, “United States: Private Antitrust Litigation – Class Actions.”  He wrote: “As many appreciate, two Supreme Court...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Provider Competition Matters—Even for “Reference Pricing”
October 10, 2014
Editor’s Note: This blog post was originally published to BakerHostetler’s Health Law Update blog. In a recent blog post, three Federal Trade Commission (FTC) economists splashed some cold water on advocates of “reference pricing” that...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
A History of American Monopolists: Lessons Not Easily Learned
September 29, 2014
As the story goes, in 1902, President Teddy Roosevelt, wanting to make his mark on the presidency as a real deal “trust buster,” took aim at Wall Street by going after financial titan J.P. Morgan. Working with his then-attorney general...
Read More ->